Placeholder canvas

Obama Praises Affordable Care Act on Its 5th Birthday

Obama Praises Affordable Care Act on Its 5th Birthday

WASHINGTON — President Obama marked the fifth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act by mocking the law’s longtime critics as wrong about their predictions that its passage would doom America’s health care system.

In an event at the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said the law had decreased the ranks of the uninsured by a third, having enabled 16 million people to sign up for health coverage through the government marketplaces.

”We have been promised a lot of things in these past five years that didn’t turn out to be the case,” Mr. Obama said. “Death panels, doom, a serious alternative from Republicans in Congress.”

The president’s remarks came as the law remained under attack on multiple fronts. In a challenge before the Supreme Court this month, plaintiffs argued that a critical part of the law — the subsidies that make insurance affordable — cannot be provided to people signing up at HealthCare.gov.

And Republicans, who now control Congress, are pressing forward with efforts to change or even repeal parts of the law. In announcing his candidacy for president on Monday, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, vowed to repeal “every single word” of the health care law.

Michael C. Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, issued a statement shortly after Mr. Obama’s remarks.

“No matter how much President Obama spins his unpopular health care law so Hillary Clinton can run for his third term, middle class Americans are still being saddled with higher premiums, higher taxes, fewer work hours, and canceled plans,” Mr. Short said.

For Mr. Obama, the attacks may become easier to deflect, given the statistics that he cited at the event on Wednesday. He said that health care premiums would be $1,800 higher now if price growth in that industry had continued at the rate of five years ago. He said that cuts in Medicare drug costs had saved seniors $15 billion.

”It’s working, despite countless attempts to repeal, undermine, defund and defame this law,” Mr. Obama said.

“It’s not the job killer that critics have warned about for five years,” Mr. Obama said. “When this law was passed, our businesses began the longest streak of private sector job growth on record. Sixty straight months. Five straight years. Twelve million new jobs.”

Republicans insist that the economy would have been even better without the health care law. But after years in which the White House was on the defensive — especially when it came to the rocky implementation of the law — Mr. Obama on Wednesday was ready to simply brag about it.

”We know beyond a shred of a doubt that the policy works,” he said.

Source: NY Times

Speak with an attorney about your case today.

Or fill out the form below:

Congress to Weigh a Plan to Protect Medicare Fees and Children’s Insurance

Congress to Weigh a Plan to Protect Medicare Fees and Children’s Insurance

WASHINGTON — Lobbyists will descend on Congress this week as lawmakers near a bipartisan agreement to finance health care for the oldest and youngest Americans, by revamping the payment of doctors under Medicare and by extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The agreement, negotiated by Speaker John A. Boehner and the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, would repeal a Medicare formula that threatens to cut doctors’ fees each year. In its place, Congress would establish an “incentive payment system” to reward doctors who receive high performance scores from the government. Scores would be based on factors like the ability to keep patients healthy while controlling costs.

Passage of the legislation would be a significant accomplishment for Mr. Boehner. It would eliminate the need for Congress to go through contortions to set Medicare payment rates for physicians, an annual exercise informally known as the “doc fix.”

Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas and chief sponsor of the bill, said, “It removes the imminent threat of draconian cuts to Medicare providers that have created uncertainty for millions of beneficiaries.”

Ms. Pelosi said she was pleased with the results of her unusual collaboration with the speaker. “It’s not a ‘doc fix,’ ” she said. “It’s a fix for America’s seniors so that they can continue to see their doctor under Medicare.”

The bill hit a snag in the Senate at the end of last week. Some Democrats expressed concern about an unrelated provision of the bill that would impose restrictions on abortions at community health centers. Ms. Pelosi tried to tamp down the concern, telling Democrats that the restrictions represented “no change in current policy.”

Without action by Congress, doctors face a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments on April 1. On 17 occasions in the last 12 years, Congress has passed legislation to block such cuts without fundamentally changing the payment formula. Removing the threat of future cuts has been a top goal of lobbyists for the American Medical Association and other doctor groups.

The changes are part of a package estimated to cost $200 billion over 10 years, lawmakers said. The legislation would offset about $70 billion of the cost, with roughly half of the savings coming from higher costs for some Medicare beneficiaries and half from lower reimbursements to health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes.

House leaders have not identified a way to pay the remaining $130 billion. Most of that expense could be added to the budget deficit, a prospect that dismays fiscal conservatives.

The proposals have touched off a frenzy of lobbying by health care providers and consumer groups. Dr. Austin I. King, president of the Texas Medical Association, announced “a massive grass-roots campaign to demand that Congress pass this bill.”

Lobbying groups for older Americans, including the AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, denounced the plan, saying it put too much of a financial burden on patients.

Mr. Boehner described the new costs for beneficiaries as “modest bipartisan changes — structural reforms” that would strengthen Medicare and save money in the long run.

One proposal would require higher-income Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher premiums for coverage of prescription drugs and doctors’ services. Another would require some new beneficiaries to pay more of the out-of-pocket costs now covered by certain insurance policies that supplement Medicare.

The supplemental policies reduce the need for consumers to worry about deductibles and co-payments. As a result, critics say, patients use more services, driving up Medicare costs and premiums for all beneficiaries.

Republicans have argued for years that Medicare beneficiaries would be more cost-conscious if they had more “skin in the game.” House Republican leaders said President Obama’s latest budget request included similar proposals to make some beneficiaries pay more.

However, some conservatives do not like the deal worked out by Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi.

“I’m not very excited about the bill,” said Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho. “At the same time we’re saying as Republicans that we’re going to balance the budget in 10 years, we’re going to add $120 billion or $130 billion to the deficit, and that seems incongruous to me.”

Representative Tim Huelskamp, Republican of Kansas, said: “I find it very disagreeable that somehow a fix means we just add it to the debt. That’s the fix? That’s not a fix. That’s the same old Washington way of doing things that’s been going on under both parties for decades. That’s why we have $18 trillion in debt.”

The current Medicare formula, established under laws passed in 1989 and 1997, reduces payments to doctors whenever spending for their services exceeds a goal, the “sustainable growth rate,” linked to the country’s economic growth. Under the Boehner-Pelosi proposal, Medicare would increase payments to doctors by one-half of 1 percent a year through 2019. Starting in 2019, doctors would receive bonuses or penalties, depending on their performance.

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, making coverage widely available, some lawmakers said it would reduce the need for the separate insurance program for children. Congress provided money for the program only through Sept. 30 of this year.

But researchers have found that private health plans sold on the new insurance exchanges do not meet the needs of children as effectively as the federal program, known as CHIP, which covers eight million children for at least part of the year. The private plans typically cover fewer services for children and pay for less of the costs.

Unless Congress provides additional money, the National Governors Association said in a letter to lawmakers last month, “more than two million children could lose access to the services they need to thrive.”

Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi have agreed to provide money for the children’s insurance program for two more years. Advocates for children and Senate Democrats said that was not enough; they want a four-year extension, which Mr. Obama also supports.

“How do we leave here taking care of the doctors permanently and shortchanging children, giving them only two years of health insurance?” asked Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio.

Senate Democrats have all endorsed a bill by Mr. Brown to provide money for CHIP through 2019. Congress plans to begin a two-week recess on Friday.

Source: NYTimes

What No-Fault Benefits Am I Entitled to Recover?

The New York State Department of Financial Services gives pedestrians who were injured after being hit by a vehicle the right to file a claim for damages under the no-fault insurance laws.aut

If the injuries you sustained a are serious enough that the related medical costs, loss of income and other accident-related expenses exceed the maximum no-fault coverage, you may be able to seek additional benefits, or sue the at-fault driver for fair compensation.

Do My Injuries Meet the State’s Serious Injury Threshold?

According to Section 5102(d) of the New York Insurance Law, a negligent driver must have been responsible for causing a victim serious injury before the victim can file a lawsuit to seek damages above and beyond no-fault benefits. The serious injury threshold, as laid out by the New York State Bar Association, must involve one of the following personal injuries:

  • Fractures
  • Significant, temporary limitations in body functions or systems
  • Permanent, significant limitations in body functions or systems
  • Permanent loss of a limb, organ, body function or system
  • Substantial disfigurement
  • Loss of a fetus
  • Dismemberment
  • Death

The law also states that if a pedestrian is injured to such a level that it will prevent the individual from performing the majority of his or her daily routine, for between 90 and 180 days following the accident, those injuries will likely meet the serious injury threshold.

Legal Representation If You Have Been Hit By a Car While Crossing the Street

Being involved in a pedestrian or auto accident can leave a victim in physical pain, unable to work, and dealing with massive medical bills. If you have been hit by a car while crossing the street, you deserve to be fully compensated for your injuries and losses.

Call Brandel and schedule to meet with a New York accident attorney to discuss your case, learn about your rights, and get help to determine whether you have the right to sue the driver. We know state law, and we take our duty to our clients extremely seriously. We are here to help — Call us now.

Speak with an attorney about your case today.

Or fill out the form below:

Bill Takes Aim at S.E.C. Waivers for Firms That Broke Law

Bill Takes Aim at S.E.C. Waivers for Firms That Broke Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission faces new pressure from Congress to make it harder for lawbreaking companies to hold on to important privileges that help them raise money in the markets.

Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, is set to announce on Tuesday legislation that takes aim at how the commission grants the privileges. The announcement will coincide with the appearance that day of Mary Jo White, the S.E.C.’s chairwoman, before the House’s powerful Financial Services Committee, where Ms. Waters is the leading Democratic member.

When a company is found to have broken securities laws, the S.E.C. can disqualify it from issuing certain types of securities, which can affect how the firm raises money and impinge on client activities. The firms, however, typically request waivers from these disqualifications — and the agency has often granted them.

The S.E.C. has given waivers, for instance, to several large Wall Street firms that were found to have broken securities laws. And this year, the commission granted a waiver to Oppenheimer & Company even though it had been hit with at least 30 regulatory actions over the last decade.

“I have been disappointed with the seemingly reflexive granting of waivers to bad actors, which can enshrine a policy of ‘too big to bar,’ ” Ms. Waters said in a statement. “For large financial institutions, fines are often a mere cost of doing business, and waiving disqualification provisions allows bad actors to continue to operate in the marketplace undeterred.”

Critics of the waivers also include Kara M. Stein and Luis A. Aguilar, two of the S.E.C.’s Democratic commissioners.

In recent months, the waivers have become a lightning rod for consumer advocates who contend that more should be done to punish and deter corporate wrongdoing.

Ms. White, however, devoted almost all of a recent speech to defending the agency’s handling of the waivers. She said that the S.E.C. did not routinely grant waivers but was instead rigorous when deciding whether to grant one.

Ms. White also questioned the appropriateness of barring a company from issuing certain types of securities, asserting that such a ban might affect an activity that has little to do with the company’s actual misconduct.

“A strong and effective enforcement program is at the heart of the S.E.C.’s efforts to protect investors and instill confidence in the integrity of the markets,” a draft of Ms. White’s statement for delivery to the House committee on Tuesday said. She has at times voted for waivers, putting her at odds with the Democrats.

The waivers affect only certain types of money-raising. The disqualifications that firms seek to avoid do not, for instance, place an outright ban on a company issuing securities in public markets. Instead, they may bar a company from issuing securities in public markets on an accelerated, continuing basis, forcing it to file a fresh request with the S.E.C. to sell the securities.

The S.E.C. can also disqualify a company from issuing into private markets, which can be a big source of financing and revenue for certain firms.

Ms. Waters’s bill seeks to shed more light on the waiver process. It would require the S.E.C. to maintain public records of all waiver requests and denials, something that it does not currently provide.

The bill also requires the agency to make waiver requests public, and gives the public the opportunity to comment and ask for a hearing on whether a company should be granted a waiver. The S.E.C.’s staff lawyers can, in theory, handle and vote on waivers, but the agency’s five commissioners have taken up recent waiver requests.

Ms. Waters’s bill intends to formally and permanently shift the responsibility for waivers to the commissioners.

The prospects for the bill look unpromising in the Republican-dominated House. Still, the legislation will most likely add fuel to the debate over corporate wrongdoing and perhaps reverberate through Wall Street.

“I hope this proposal sends a message to every financial institution that they can no longer expect to receive a waiver in the same manner as they were issued in the past,” Representative Waters said in her statement.

Original Article: NY Times

What No-Fault Benefits Am I Entitled to Recover?

The New York State Department of Financial Services gives pedestrians who were injured after being hit by a vehicle the right to file a claim for damages under the no-fault insurance laws.aut

If the injuries you sustained a are serious enough that the related medical costs, loss of income and other accident-related expenses exceed the maximum no-fault coverage, you may be able to seek additional benefits, or sue the at-fault driver for fair compensation.

Do My Injuries Meet the State’s Serious Injury Threshold?

According to Section 5102(d) of the New York Insurance Law, a negligent driver must have been responsible for causing a victim serious injury before the victim can file a lawsuit to seek damages above and beyond no-fault benefits. The serious injury threshold, as laid out by the New York State Bar Association, must involve one of the following personal injuries:

  • Fractures
  • Significant, temporary limitations in body functions or systems
  • Permanent, significant limitations in body functions or systems
  • Permanent loss of a limb, organ, body function or system
  • Substantial disfigurement
  • Loss of a fetus
  • Dismemberment
  • Death

The law also states that if a pedestrian is injured to such a level that it will prevent the individual from performing the majority of his or her daily routine, for between 90 and 180 days following the accident, those injuries will likely meet the serious injury threshold.

Legal Representation If You Have Been Hit By a Car While Crossing the Street

Being involved in a pedestrian or auto accident can leave a victim in physical pain, unable to work, and dealing with massive medical bills. If you have been hit by a car while crossing the street, you deserve to be fully compensated for your injuries and losses.

Call Brandel and schedule to meet with a New York accident attorney to discuss your case, learn about your rights, and get help to determine whether you have the right to sue the driver. We know state law, and we take our duty to our clients extremely seriously. We are here to help — Call us now.

Speak with an attorney about your case today.

Or fill out the form below: